Returning to the ISIS doctor, it is an interesting finding of psychologists that intelligent people are just as likely to be followers of cults as any other person.

The apparent reason they 'sign up' is because they believe that the cult will be a vehicle to bring what they want into being, their will, that they see the remainder of society (and authority) preventing. They believe they know best what others should have (and the cult may deliver deliver it for them).

By way of example, that would seem to have been the belief and motivation of the intelligent public servant Evan Pederick, who joined Ananda Marga and bombed the Hilton Hotel. Pederick was a leftist who believed HE knew what was best for society. The Ananda Marga provided his opportunity to further his plan for society.

For information, Pederick was no victim of society. He had an arrogant belief that he was right, others were wrong and it was going to be his way or else. It appears he had a comfy existence as a child and had a good, guaranteed future as a public servant.

I believe that is a common link between most activists who would break laws. It is very personal for them. They are serving their own personal interests, a drive to impose their own opinion on others, regardless. They like to see 'authority' back down to their power. There is a big personal buzz in that too. Sad types that they are and dangerous.

That is why so many are serial activists and can easily turn a blind eye to their own obvious lies and hypocrisy and those of the movement they follow.

It is a fraud for them to assert that they are serving a higher being, morality or good.

tbc..

continued..

The ISIS doctor is arrogant and self-serving, predictable. He is serving his own selfish, egocentric ends (whatever they are), just like the other murderous types he has joined.

Apologists who would have the public believe that these volunteers for ISIS do so because 'society' has treated them poorly are gullible (through their own baggage?) or have their own self-serving agenda. Either way they just muddy the waters and lack credibility.

Dear Loudmouth,

Different species can sometimes interbreed. The offspring of a horse and donkey is a mule which is generally sterile.

Lions and Tigers can also breed.

What defines a species is a contentious matter. However, lions and tigers along with horses and donkeys are distinct species.

I would not presume to make assumptions about
a stranger's behaviour or the reasons for it
without a full knowledge of the facts. And even
then -
any analising should be left to people
with appropriate qualifications and experience
in dealing with these complex issues.

What we are told is that Dr Tareq Kamleh is registered
as a doctor in WA and graduated from the University of
Adelaide in 2010. He's in his late 20s.

What on earth possessed him to appear on a propaganda
video in support of ISIS is clearly a question that needs
to be asked as it is unacceptable for any Australian to
advocate on behalf of a terrorist group.

Hi David,

It was well-known by the 1860s that what were called 'half-castes' could inter-marry or inter-mix and reproduce with each other quite happily. They certainly weren't sterile, like mules.

This caused a bit of trouble for some policy-makers who had defined a 'half-caste' as the child of an Aboriginal mother and a white father - so when 'half-castes' married 'half-castes', their children were not legally 'half-castes', and in the early twentieth century, they could and did apply for the full rights to vote, drink, etc., like other British subjects, and be recognised as beyond the restrictions of the various Aborigines Acts.

Of course, many children had non-Aboriginal AND non-white parentage, Afghan, Chinese, Malay, Maori, which further complicated the issue for policy-makers. I'm sure the people involved were usually blissfully unaware of the difficulties they had caused. Good on them :)

Joe

Perhaps the good doctor thinks the same of us, that we are the ones with the arrogant view of what is right. So, who is right, and why?

We know we are not necessarily fighting imbeciles, lunes, or the disaffected/disenfranchised within Oz, so what lies deeper?

I think the the chicken comes before the egg and 'identity' arises from being a part of a group of the same outlook and propensity to act. So the question is from what does the outlook spring?

There is a very wide view in the Muslim world that it has been dispossessed, going back to the demise of the Ottoman empire, which was built upon a religion.

Is it as simple as giving up territory lost by the Ottomans and past caliphates to ISIS and partners, even parts of western Europe, or will that not be sufficient?

In my endeavour to open up this question a little, I have asked posters NC/McAdam to identify the ME members of the UN that do not control/possess their own assets, which they claimed, but the request was studiously ignored.